...
| # | Scenario | Outcome Option | Outcome selection | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Create new MARC authority record via data import | A. No change. Nothing happens as far as linking. B. I expect something else. | JAC-B | JAC- Would like to be able to auto-link records based on the 010 matching a $0, but would prefer this to happen outside of the import process due to other potential processes happening at the same time. JC- logs should be available at the completion of this process. If there are other circumstances that create unlinked records but have a $0 consider making this some kind of regular scheduled system process rather than related to DI. |
| 2 | Edit MARC authority (010 $a field) records via quickMARC
| Question 1. If we cannot guarantee real-time updates of linked bib records (due to number of records to update) what is the MOST tolerable amount of time to wait for linked bib updates to complete that do not impact your workflows. A. 30 minutes B. 60 minutes C. 8 hours D. 12 hours E. 24 hours F. I want to schedule when these updates happen G. Do not allow a user to change 010 $a. Make it a read-only field (just like 001). H. I expect something else Question 2. How should FOLIO communicate the state of updating linking MARC bib records? A. Dashboard/widget B. In-app report C. Job logs list similar to data import (UX) - https://bugfest-mg.int.aws.folio.org/data-import (username: folio / password: folio) D. I expect something else | Question 1 RW-B Question 2 RW- see comment | Question 1 Question 2 RW- I'm not sure which method I want, but I would want a push notification of some type because chances are that I forgot this running a couple of minutes after it started |
| 3 | Edit MARC authority (1XX field) records via quickMARC
| Question 1. If we cannot guarantee real-time updates of linked bib records (due to number of records to update) what is the MOST tolerable amount of time to wait for linked bib updates to complete that do not impact your workflows. A. 30 minutes B. 60 minutes C. 8 hours D. 12 hours E. 24 hours F. I want to schedule when these updates happen G. I expect something else Question 2. How should FOLIO communicate the state of updating linking MARC bib records? A. Dashboard/widget B. In-app report C. Job logs list similar to data import (UX) - https://bugfest-mg.int.aws.folio.org/data-import (username: folio / password: folio) D. I expect something else | Question 1 RW-B JC - E/G- determine a cut off, like 100 do at once 5k do over night. Question 2 RW- see comment | Question 1 JC- Hard to determine without knowing the update mechanism. If this is a shadow DI job, performance and other concerns much higher, would want to do large sets overnight even more. Question 2 RW- I'm not sure which method I want, but I would want a push notification of some type because chances are that I forgot this running a couple of minutes after it started JC - DI log style |
| 4 | Edit MARC authority (NOT 010 $a or 1XX field) field via quickMARC
| A. No impact to any bib records linked to the authority record B. I expect something else | RW -A JAC- A | |
| 5 | Edit MARC authority (1XX field) records via data import
| Question 1. If we cannot guarantee real-time updates of linked bib records (due to number of records to update) what is the MOST tolerable amount of time to wait for linked bib updates to complete that do not impact your workflows. A. 30 minutes B. 60 minutes C. 8 hours D. 12 hours E. 24 hours F. I want to schedule when these updates happen G. I expect something else Question 2. How should FOLIO communicate the state of updating linking MARC bib records? A. Dashboard/widget B. In-app report C. Job logs list similar to data import (UX) - https://bugfest-mg.int.aws.folio.org/data-import (username: folio / password: folio) D. Add an indication of the status of updating bib records on the Data import job list? E. I expect something else | Question 1 RW- same answers and comments to both questions as questions 2 and 3 JC - overnight, depending on job size Question 2 jc - DI log | |
| 6 | Edit MARC authority (010 $a field) records via data import
| A. No impact. Create a new MARC authority record. B. Update 010 $a value and update all linked bib fields' $0 C. I expect something else | RW-B JAC-A | RW- This one I would want to talk out possibilities more. Especially when dealing with formerly undifferentiated names. JC–if the 1xx field changes, then I would want B, but if the 010 changes then the records would need further examination–usually this doesn't happen unless a record is being deleted, and that typically requires human intervention due to the complexity of undifferentitated names. I would prefer a report of these types of string matches based on the 1xx. |
| 7 | Edit MARC authority (NOT 010 $a or 1XX field) records via data import
| A. No impact to any bib records linked to the authority record B. I expect something else | RW- A JAC- A | |
| 8 | Delete MARC authority record via quickMARC
| A. Allow for deletion to proceed. Ask user to confirm that they want to delete the authority record. Ensure they understand impact of unlinking these records by providing # of records to be unlinked. Linked bib fields are no longer linked. Retain [$a Twain, Mark, $d 1835-1910 $0 <<URI>>] only change is user can now edit these values because no longer controlled. B. Do not allow a user to delete authority record with linked bib records. C. I expect something else | RW-A JAC- A | RW- If we go with option B, then there needs to be a good mechanism for unlinking records because I do not want to have to unlink hundreds or thousands of records by hand in order to delete one authority record. JC- ^^^^This^^^^^ |
...